RECOMMENDATION ID1:
Recommendation for HL7 RIM and/or
Vocabulary Changes
For Harmonization During: March 2014
<<unique per submitter>>
Sponsored by2: RCRIM
Sponsor’s Draft3:
Sponsor’s Status4
Date Approved by Sponsor: <<date>>
Editor/ Author: Mead Walker
PROPOSALNAME: ECG Control Variable Concept Domain
Class Model Change
Datatypes Change
Structural Vocabulary Change
Other Vocabulary Change
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Create a description for an existing concept domain. The concept domain is needed as a
component of the Annotated ECG Topic
VOCABULARY OBJECTS CHANGE SUMMARY
Abbrev.
D
S
C
V
B
Description
Concept Domains
Code Systems
Concept Codes in a Code System
Value Sets
Context Bindings
# to add
1
# to remove
# to change
POSITION OF CONCERNED ORGANIZATIONS:
ORG
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL STATUS
AFFECTED ELEMENTS OF INTEREST TO ORG
RCRIM
Endorsed
ECG Control Variable
ISSUE:
A concept domain needed for use within an Implementation Guide lacks a description.
CURRENT STATE:
The concept domain, ECG Control Variable, has no description.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
None
RATIONALE:
It is inappropriate to go forward with ECG implementation documents that will make use of this
concept domain.
RECOMMENDATION DETAILS:
Name: ECG Control Variable [Parent: Observation Type]
Description: Identifies types of observations about the parameters required for acquisition and
processing of ECG data.
1
identifier by which proposal is known to sponsor
must be sponsored by an HL7 TC, the HL7 International Committee, an HL7 SIG, or an ANSI or ISO
accredited SDO
3
for sponsor tracking only; not for Harmonization identification
4
for sponsor tracking only, Sponsor’s status must be “Approved” for submission to Harmonization
2
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
Examples: "[Observation of] item byte order", "[Observation of] sample rate", "[Observation of]
displayed sweep rate"
DISCUSSION:
The Control Variable observation needs to be used to support new requirements for reporting
continuous ECGs.
ACTION ITEMS:
M&M to implement recommendation.
RESOLUTION:
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
Checklist for HL7 Vocabulary Harmonization Submissions
General
1. Has the proposal, in its final form, been reviewed by the sponsor committee’s
vocabulary facilitator (mark N/A if there is no facilitator)? (
- Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
2. Have you completely filled out header section for the proposal and checked that the
dates are correct and the submission number is unique across all of your submissions
for this harmonization cycle? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
3. Have you filled out the summary form identifying the number of created, updated and
deprecated objects of each type? ( - Yes;)
4. Has your proposal been submitted to and reviewed by all relevant WGs and been
formally endorsed (with a vote recorded in the WG minutes) to be brought forward to
harmonization? (For harmonization submissions from international affiliates, approval
by an appropriate affiliate level committee or project is sufficient, though submission to
the relevant HL7 UV WG is strongly recommended.) ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
New Concept Domains (
- N/A)
For all concept domains being created by this proposal:
5. Have you done a key-word search for equivalent or similar concept domains and, if any
exist, identified appropriate parent and child relationships to position your concept
domain? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
6. Have you provided a name for your concept domain that follows the naming
guidelines?( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
7. If your concept domain is not associated with a new RIM attribute or datatype property,
have you identified a parent for your concept domain? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
8. Have you checked whether any existing concept domains are proper specializations of
your concept domain and, if so, identified those new specialization relationships as part
of your proposal? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
9. If your concept domain is in the ActCode, RoleCode or EntityCode hierarchy, have you
identified the classCode that acts as the “root” for the concept domain? ( - Yes;
No;
- N/A)
10. Have you verified that all concept domains referenced as parent or child concepts
actually exist in the most recent vocabulary repository and are correctly spelled in your
proposal using U.S. language settings? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
11. Have you provided a concise, non-tautological definition for your concept domain and
confirmed that the definition follows the best practices for definitions? ( - Yes;
No;
- N/A)
12. Have you checked the name of your concept domain and associated definition for
appropriate spelling and grammar using U.S. language settings, and consistency with the
current Concept Domain naming conventions? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
13. Have you either: Provided 3 distinct examples; identified a binding to an example value
set with 3 distinct example codes; identified a representative binding; or identified a
universal binding? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
Revised Concept Domains (
- N/A)
For all concept domains being revised by this proposal:
14. Have you identified the name of the existing concept domain, and verified that the
concept domain does in fact exist in the most recent vocabulary repository with the
name spelled as referenced? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
15. Have you verified that any additional concept domains identified as parents or children
and any code referenced as the anchor for the concept domain actually exist and are
spelled properly? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
16. Have you confirmed that any change to the definition would not cause backwards
compatibility issues with any models that reference the Concept Domain under the old
definition? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
17. Have you confirmed that any changes to the Concept Domain definition continue to
comply with best practices for definitions? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
18. Have you spell-checked and grammar checked your revised definition using U.S.
language settings? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
New/Revised Code System (
- N/A)
For all code systems created or whose metadata is updated by this proposal:
19. For new HL7-maintained code systems, have you confirmed that no other terminology
maintenance organization is a more appropriate organization to maintain the code
system and codes within it? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
20. For new external code systems, have you confirmed that the code system follows the
good terminology practices and is therefore appropriate for use in HL7 instances? ( Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
21. For external code systems where there is a desire for HL7 to publish codes from the
external code system, have you verified that there are no copyright issues associated
with the publication and provided a justification for why HL7 should take on this
administrative effort as well as identified how the HL7 published versions will be kept in
sync with the source? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
22. Have you provided a short-name for the code system that is unique among all other
code systems found in the HL7 OID registry? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
23. For all code systems, have you provided:
a. A long, unique “descriptive” name for the code system? (
N/A)
- Yes;
b. A description of the intended use and scope of the code system (
No;
- N/A)
24. For external code systems, have you provided:
- No;
- Yes;
-
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
a. OID for the code system (if already registered in the HL7 OID registry or
otherwise assigned an OID)? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
b. Licensing information (
- Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
c. URL information for the official source of the vocabulary (
N/A)
d. Contact Information (
- Yes;
- No;
- Yes;
- No;
-
- N/A)
e. The “short name” for the code system is consistent with the following rules (ISO
Secondary Identifier rules plus some HL7 constraints)
i. No spaces
ii. Only the characters 0-9, a-z, A-Z and hyphens
iii. Cannot have multiple consecutive hyphens or end with a hyphen
iv. Leading character must be a lower-case alpha
v. Must be unique from among all registered code systems in HL7’s OID
registry
vi. Should not match any code system in HL7’s OID registry even when
treating both as upper-case
Revised Code in Code System (
- N/A)
For all new codes created by this proposal:
25. Have you searched the code system in the most recent repository using keywords to
verify that an equivalent code doesn’t already exist? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
26. Have you searched the code system in the most recent repository to confirm that no
code already exists with the same code? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A) Note that you
must also check existing retired and/or deprecated codes for existence.
27. If adding a code from an external code system for HL7 publication (where HL7 has
agreed to publish codes from the external code system), have you confirmed that the
code has actually been accepted by the external code system and confirmed the code,
print names and definition are identical to those in the most recent version of the
external code system? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
Added or Revised Code in Code System (
- N/A)
For all new codes created or updated by this proposal:
28. When adding a code or changing a print name, have you search searched the code
system in the most recent repository that no code already exists with the same print
name? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
29. Have you provided a code values and (where appropriate) print names that align with
the naming convention for the code system? (Generally all upper case, no spaces for
codes, lower case for print names. Depending on the code system, the code may be
mnemonic or not). ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
30. Have you provided a definition for the code that follows the best practices for
definitions? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
31. Have you spell-checked (and for definitions grammar-checked) the definitions and print
names using U.S. language settings? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
32. Have you defined all required properties for the code system in which the code is being
added? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
a. ActClass: “specialized by concept domain”, Formal class name, formal name for
association from participation to Act
b. ActCode: “specialized by concept domain”
c. ActMood: Formal name
d. ActRelationshipType: “is document characteristic?”; applies to; how applies;
Formal name from Act to outbound ActRelationship, ActRelationship to source
Act, ActRelationship to target Act and Act to inbound ActRelationship; Sort for
Act to inbound ActRelationship and Act to outbound ActRelationship
e. CompressionAlgorithm: howApplies (mandatory, deprecated, other)
f.
EntityClass: “specialized by concept domain”, applies to determinerCode,
Formal class name
g. EntityDeterminer: Formal name
h. GTSAbbreviation: Equivalent expression
i.
ObservationMethod: how applies?
j.
ParticipationType: “specialized by concept domain”, “is document
characteristic?”, Formal name from Act to Participation and Role to
Participation; Sort from Act to Participation and Role to Participation
k. RoleClass: “specialized by concept domain”, Formal name, Participation to Role
name, Role to player Entity name, Entity to played Role name, Entity to scoped
Role name, Role to scoper Entity name, Entity to played Role sort, Entity to
scoped Role sort
l.
RoleCode: conceptStatusQualifier
m. RoleLinkType: Formal name from Role to outbound RoleLink, RoleLink to source
Role, RoleLink to target Role and Role to inbound RoleLink; Sort for Role to
inbound RoleLink and Role to outboundRoleLink
33. Have you checked the current version of the code system and identified all code(s) that
should be parents and/or children of the new concept and verified that you have listed
them all appropriately (and spelled correctly) in your proposal? ( - Yes;
- No;
N/A)
34. Have you identified whether the code should be considered abstract or not? (
- No;
- N/A)
- Yes;
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
35. If deprecating a code, have you identified a reason for the deprecation and provided
guidance for what should be used instead? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
New Value Sets (
- N/A)
For all new value sets created as part of this proposal:
36. Have you verified that the value set is appropriate to be registered in the HL7 Inc.
repository (created against structural code systems, used in a UV, Example or
Representative binding)? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
37. Have you identified whether the value set definition is immutable? I.e. It is a definition
that must never be changed. ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
38. Have you verified that the name for the value set does not already exist in the existing
HL7 repository? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
39. Have you named the value set using the naming guidelines found here:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Value_Set_Naming_Conventions ( - Yes;
- N/A)
New or Modified Value Sets (
- No;
- N/A)
For all value sets created or modified as part of this proposal:
40. That any modified value sets are not flagged as immutable. (
- Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
41. For non-immutable value sets, have you provided a description that explains the scope
of the value set and the “owning” WG that should be responsible for determining how
the value set definition evolves over time? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
42. Have you defined all required properties for value sets drawn from one of the following
structural code systems? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
a. ActClass: Formal class name, formal name for association from participation to
Act
b. ActMood: Formal name
c. ActRelationshipType: Formal name from Act to outbound ActRelationship,
ActRelationship to source Act, ActRelationship to target Act and Act to inbound
ActRelationship; Sort for Act to inbound ActRelationship and Act to outbound
ActRelationship
d. EntityClassFormal class name
e. EntityDeterminer: Formal name
f.
ParticipationType: Formal name from Act to Participation and Role to
Participation; Sort from Act to Participation and Role to Participation
g. RoleClass: Formal name, Participation to Role name, Role to player Entity name,
Entity to played Role name, Entity to scoped Role name, Role to scoper Entity
name, Entity to played Role sort, Entity to scoped Role sort
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
h. RoleLinkType: Formal name from Role to outbound RoleLink, RoleLink to source
Role, RoleLink to target Role and Role to inbound RoleLink; Sort for Role to
inbound RoleLink and Role to outboundRoleLink
43. Have you checked that your value set name and description are correctly spelled (and
for descriptions, have correct grammar) using U.S. language settings, and is consistent
with the current Value Set naming conventions? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
44. Have you checked that all references to codes in your value set definition identify their
associated code system and actually exist within the current version of their respective
code systems (both HL7 and external code systems)? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
45. Have you verified that if your value set content definition is enumerated (extensional)
that there is no appropriate or better way to define it as an expression-based
(intentional) definition? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
46. For expression-based value set content definitions, have you confirmed that your
expression is expressed in a way that is fully defined against the HL7 metamodel? (
Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
-
a. For code-based value sets, identify whether the head-code is included or not
b. For code-based value sets, identify whether the included codes should be
children, all descendants or leaf nodes only
c. For code based value sets, that the specific type of association to be navigated is
identified if it is something other than the subsumption relationship
d. For complex value sets, that they are expressed as a combination of unions,
intersections and exclusions where “order of operations” is clearly documented
e. For property-based value sets, that the referenced property names actually exist
in their respective code systems and are spelled correctly
f.
That for mnemonic-based value sets, that the reg-ex expression to be evaluated
against the codes is a valid reg-ex expression
47. If deprecating a value set, have you identified a reason for the deprecation and provided
guidance for what should be used instead? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
New Binding Realms (
- N/A)
For all new Binding Realms created as part of this proposal:
48. Have you identified the owning affiliate and the superset binding realm? (
No;
- N/A)
- Yes;
-
49. Have you received official permission from the affiliate t create the new binding realm (
- Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
50. Have you identified a proposed code for the binding realm that is unique amongst all
binding realms in the most recent version of the repository following binding realm
naming conventions (i.e. starting with the code for the affiliate)? ( - Yes;
- No;
N/A)
-
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change (continued)
51. Have you provided a unique descriptive name for the new binding realm? (
No;
- N/A)
- Yes;
-
52. Have you provided a description that explains the scope of the new binding realm and
spell-checked and grammar-checked it? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
New Context Bindings (
- N/A)
For all new Context Bindings created as part of this proposal:
53. Have you declared the name of the concept domain, the binding realm and the value set
name or OID? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
54. Have you checked that the concept domain name, binding realm code and value set
name or OID actually exist in the most recent version of the repository? ( - Yes;
No;
- N/A)
55. If the binding is not to be effective immediately upon harmonization approval and
application of approved changes, have you identified the effective date? ( - Yes;
No;
- N/A)
-
56. Have you checked whether there is already a binding for the same concept domain and
binding realm and if so, either specified a new sequence number (to allow parallel
bindings) or a date to on which the old binding should end and the new one should
become effective? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
57. If binding in a realm other than “example”, have you conformed that the set of codes in
the valueset being bound provides full coverage for the concept space defined by the
concept domain? ( - Yes;
- No;
- N/A)
Explanation for N/A Items